Related

Post navigation

3 Comments

Nothing. But that is the nature of post-modernism: it is fundamentally a critique–not a movement of thought. It is negative in its disposition, not positive. In fact, some sharp thinkers hold that it is better to cal post-modernism “ultra-modernism” because all it does is take modernism to its logical (and frightening) conclusions. Post-modernism is dead already. When I was in undergrad, my professors indicated that post-modernism as an academic discipline died in the late 90s. It served its purpose: critiquing the naive and destructive presuppositions of modernism. But post-post-modernism doesn’t make sense, because post-modernism is a critique, not a movement. I talked with one professor at Wheaton recently who mentioned that English studies are returning to historical studies because they are sick of deconstructionism. I think what is next is a comfortable admission that we all stand on a creed–this is close to a premodernism.

Interesting thoughts. Seems to me that even a negative, reactionary movement is undergirded by some kind of positive values and assumptions. In any case, even a negative critique is not nothing. No historical setting looks like nothing. “Post-modernism is dead already.” I don’t think that is quite accurate – its influence in academic circles may have morphed and even softened, but in the culture at large it still seems to me to exert a strong influence. Here is another way to phrase the question: in 150 years will most people (in America, lets say) be more optimistic or more pessimistic about meta-narrative?